A Cosmogonical Hypothesis on the Birth of the Universe:

Gods_Are_Imaginary's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A Cosmogonical Hypothesis on the Birth of the Universe:

 A Cosmogonical Hypothesis on the Birth of the Universe:

 In the Beginning there was Hydrogen.

And Hydrogen, formed from Quarks & Anti-quarks, became so Abundantthat the Process of Fusion transformed some Molecules into Helium.
Hydrogen & Helium continued to Interact through the Processes of Fusion and, later, as Heavier Elements were Formed-- through Fission to Birth the First Star.
The First Star Lived & Died, perhaps longer than any we've known, and upon its Death & Gravitational Collapse it then spun into a disc-shaped Kerr Black Hole.

All of the Dead Star's Matter was forced by Extreme Gravity through the Black Hole, spewing it out into what We would recognize as a Universe.
Each Galaxy, being little more than Galactic Tide Pools, began living Its Own Life & Birthing New Stars.
Each Star Lives & Dies, but sometimes, it creates Planets in the process.

OUR Star died once, Birthing Earth & Neighbors, then it Re-Ignited into what we now know as our Sun.
The Sun still keeps Earth Alive & a Multitude of Organisms, including Us, are fortunate enough to Thrive here.

Seems Reasonable to Me.

Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Well, it is not a bad idea

 Well, it is not a bad idea by any means. However, is it possible to falsify it? I don't know but being your idea, it is on you to say how we could know that it could possibly be wrong.


In any case, it is also lacking another important detail. Specifically, where did the original matter come from? Sure, it is there and it did stuff and eventually we are here to discuss such ideas. Still, your idea carries the assumption that you can discuss the beginning of stuff while avoiding how the stuff came about.


Let me give you a view of what is generally accepted in modern cosmology:


First there was stuff. OK, that is still kind of weak but the limits of simple prose do not really lend themselves to the level of detail that really is needed. Really, we tend to think today that there may be an eternal thing that is filled with energy and energy can become matter in a process that is readily observed in modern particle colliders. Still kind of a cop out intellectually but then we would have to be talking about the idea of before the beginning of the universe. In all honesty, that makes about as much sense as trying to travel north from the north pole.


In any case, we have stuff and it is expanding and cooling. Eventually it cools to about an average temperature of ten trillion degrees. At that point, the stuff goes through a transition that is not too different from freezing. So what freezes out from this stuff are the quantum particles such as quarks, gluons and leptons. At this point, the universe is still too dense for light to pass through it.


Then, a few nanoseconds later, the universe gets cold enough for the quarks and gluons to come together as nucleons. Still too dense for light to pass through but that will only last for a couple more nanoseconds when the leptons begin to lock into the nucleons through the electromagnetic force. At that point, the light begins to shine.


Along the way to that point, there is a window of about three minutes when the nucleons can bind together to form atoms other than hydrogen. Of course, three minutes is not very long in the history of the universe but it is a really critical three minutes during which deuterium and helium can form.


So now we have a universe that is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium.


I can go on from here if that is what you want but for the most part, that is the current accepted view of the first few minutes of the universe.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."